2004 (7) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Interpretation of duty exemptions for Fork Lift Trucks & parts for 100% EOU upheld

COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II Versus GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. COMPANY LTD.

COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II Versus GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. COMPANY LTD. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 477 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Interpretation of exemption notifications regarding the clearance of Fork Lift Trucks and parts to a 100% EOU.2. Application of duty exemption under various notifications.3. Onus of responsibility on the Central Excise Officer of the 100% EOU.4. Consideration of precedents and decisions in similar cases for granting benefits under different notifications.5. Determination of the appellant's eligibility for duty exemption.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of exemption notifications concerning the clearance of Fork Lift Trucks and parts to a 100% EOU. The Commissioner had dropped the demands issued on the Respondents, but it was found that prior to 1-3-94, clearance of 'fork lift & spares' was not eligible for exemption without duty as they did not fall under the goods covered by certain notifications.2. Notification 123/81 and other notifications were analyzed to determine the eligibility for duty exemption. It was observed that the exemption was for goods used in connection with the manufacture and packaging, and fork lifter did not fall under that category. Therefore, the demands made on the appellant, who is not the EOU, could not be upheld based on the provisions of the notifications.3. The responsibility and onus of the Central Excise Officer of the 100% EOU were highlighted in Para 2(j) of Notification 123/81. The demands made on the appellant, who was not the EOU, could not be sustained based on this provision. The appellant cited precedents and decisions in similar cases to support their claim for benefits under different notifications, emphasizing that violations should be by the 100% EOU and not the domestic supplier.4. The appellant relied on previous decisions and orders where benefits were granted under different notifications in similar circumstances. The well-settled position regarding 'Violations' in such cases indicated that they should be by the 100% EOU and not the domestic supplier like the appellants. This argument supported the appeal to be allowed in favor of the appellant.5. After considering all the arguments and analyzing the provisions of the exemption notifications, it was concluded that the appeal of the Revenue lacked merit and was consequently dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting the notifications and ensuring that duty exemptions are applied appropriately based on the specific goods and circumstances involved in each case.